|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: nolemmings (Todd)
I was looking at my old Beckett #3 last night, released in 1981, and saw that he identified both sporting news m101-4 and m101-5 as being issued in 1916. He/they identified the m101-5 set as essentially a continuation of the previous issue. I always wondered why the earlier issue of 1915 carried a "higher" set identification number. Did Beckett have it wrong 20 years ago or did new information surface? If the latter, what information and when? As always, any info appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: Andy Baran
I have also always wondered why the 1915 issue was listed as M101-5, while the later 1916 issue had the lower catalog number of M101-6. I hope someone can shed some light on this. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: Andy Baran
Also, the 1916 set is not a continuation of the 1915 set. There are many players that exist in both sets, but there number is different depending on the issue. Both sets were numbered alphbetically, based on the players in the set. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: Bob Lemke
It was not Beckett who "numbered" the two Sporting News issues, it was Jefferson Burdick sometime prior to 1960. Might have been as simple as a typographical error or as complex as not having complete sets at the time upon which to base issue dates. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: nolemmings (Todd)
I know it was not Beckett who numbered the sets-- I was wondering if back in 1981 there indeed had been a belief that both sets were issued in 1916. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: leon
Whomever sends a Ruth m101-4 or -5 in gets to say what it is. I understand this is the way it is done. Would you rather have his rookie or 2nd year? Not being sarcastic as I have brought this up many times and that is always the answer I get....regards |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: Julie Vognar
And I recently noticed that it's identical to the other one--whatever that is. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: Marc S.
The reason that 1915 Cracker Jack's are worth more than their 1914 counterparts is precisely because they are easier to find. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: runscott
... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: leon
that's why some of the weirda** issues that I love are not more expensive than they are ie....... E123 Curtis Ireland, Holsum Bread, George H Ruth Candy, Rogers Peet, etc.....thank goodness.....regards |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: runscott
lol |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
sporting news question
Posted By: leon
if they are prewar and have baseball dudes.....I do have a nice orange border....not sure which candy box they came from.......and a Lections ??....and some other crap..... |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sporting News Supplement question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 06-16-2008 07:21 AM |
1917 M101-4 The Sporting News question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 04-02-2005 04:14 PM |
Sporting News Back question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 6 | 04-13-2004 09:47 AM |
Question regarding M101-5 'The Sporting News' | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 7 | 11-22-2002 09:33 AM |
George Cutshaw/ Sporting News Question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 07-08-2002 10:26 AM |